Maybe you should learn a thing or two about investing before making clueless comments like this, bro.
Yes! I trying to learn about investing and dabbling in the stupid sections of the Corp Act.If the rest of the 89% shareholders are not in agreement with him, his plan wouldn't have worked.
The use of the word, ‘shareholders” is used in a deceptive manner when used to inform the general public.
When in affect, it could be a small numbers of individuals with large shareholdings!
From the last Annual Report: 148,000 shareholders and out off this number approx 4000 holders have shareholding above 10,000 shares.
Yet you have the cheek that those 3%, u call them as the majority of individuals, being in favour of MCB hijacking the rights from other shareholders.
If superfunds allowed their customers to vote for their %, they might as well let a bunch of monkey do their job.
Why not? This right had existed for donkeys years for investors that invest through Custodian and Nominee companies.
Since most don’t take the option to vote, the decision is up to a representative and as such the representative should only allowed one vote.
‘Otherwise open the same rights to the Super funds.
If an investor isn't happy with the direction where the company is headed, and couldn't influence the decision of the board, logically, they would divest from the company.
‘You should’ve been MCB advisor because he wasn’t happy; he could have put his point’s across and let other shareholders decide; instead he used financial duress on the board and denied other shareholders to decide.
you could sell your shares instead of babbling your nonsense online.
You also had that option.
As another poster has mentioned, that ASIC should get involved and investigate into this fiasco.
(20min delay)